It was a serious mistake to use such names as Armenia/Arman and Hayastan as synonyms in historiography till 1920 because these are 2 different geographical areas and each received its name in different historical periods.

Moreover, the two names did not belong to one and the same ethnos. Armenia and Arman are both ethnotoponyms, but the latter belonged to an ancient Turkic tribe of Central and Minor Asia whereas Hayastan is a name of a state (present Armenia) and belongs to an Indo-European ethnos hay (erroneously named Armenians).

To understand which of originally Turkic ethnotoponyms with a component Armand/Erman were spread from Asia Minor to Altai it is necessary to look through some of them .

Ermen-daghi (Mountain Ermen) (Kazakhstan - Abdirahmanov, 1975, 90)Ermentau (city) (Kazakhstan - HPS, 1987,126)Eriman (Kazakhstan, Agadir area - OKJSA, 232)Erman gishlaghi (Ermen kishlak) (=Hazarak, Uzbekistan, Saryosiye area - Nafasov 1988, 222)Ermen-deli (steppe) (Turkmenistan, Yilanly area - Ataniyazov 1980, 327)Ermenigum (toponym in Turkmenistan - Ataniyazov 1988, 138)Arman-gala /=Armand fortress/ (a fortress near Ashgabad - Ataniyazov, 1980, 43)Arman (toponym in the same place, mentioned in 1818; МIТТ, II, 413)Arman (toponym in Bashkiria, Baymak area)As you could see in the examples above, the name Ermen is used in Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen, Bashkir ethnotoponymy. The FACT that they are nothing but ethnotoponyms is proved by a circumstance: some of the Turkic tribal divisions were also called Arman/Erman/Ermen. It's evident that hays who adopted the self-name of a Turkic tribe Arman in Asia Minor never reached Central Asia in antiquity.Ermen/Erman ethnonym which belonged to one of Subar-Mitan tribal divisions was reverberate not only in Ancient Azerbaijan and Anatolia, but Central Asia as well. Representatives of Turkic tribes Ermen were moving both from Southern Azerbaijan to the east, and from Northern Azerbaijan to Northern Caucasus. Therefore, so far toponimy with 'Arman' component in Ossetia and Arman-Gala (“Fortress Arman”) in Samur river outfall are known. Also note that in trilingual king Darius's Bisutun inscription names Arminiyya and Urartu are used as synonyms. The name of an Arminian (notArmenian//Hay!) who rose mutiny in Babylon Uraka is mentioned in the inscription; the same name had a Turkic khan, the king of the Nogay people, who lived in Kumyk area . At last, the fact that Arman/Armen/Erman is a tribal division known among contemporary Turkic peoples perfectly shows what kind of people it was in antiquity and what ethnic group it belonged to. Some historians and philologists who consider the heroine of Nizami Ganjevi's “Hosrov ans Shirin” poem to be "Shirin of Armenian people" (just because she is from Erman area). We should recommend them to read the part of the poem where Shirin names herself 'a Turkic girl'. The reason of distortion of the name Arman (compare Alban [Aghvan] and Aran) is that some scientists who do not know the particulars of historical ethnology put an equal-sign between ethnonym Hay andаrman/ermen, and so such horonyms as Armenia and Hayastan synonyms which brings confusion into the history of Azerbaijanis. Thus, initial carriers of the name Arman/Erman were Turkis (that is why the ethnonym was ethimologised on a Turkic lingual basis). Such facts as prevalence of Armanethntoponym from Anatolia in the west to Baikal in the east; from lake Urmia in the south up to Azov sea in the north since centuries ago. In primary sources this ethnotoponym is met in Mitanni. A SINGLE EXCEPTION as horonym Armenia (a state created by Hays ['Armenians'] in annexed lands of Western Azerbaijan - Chuhur Sa'ad, Zangezur etc. in the beginning of XIX century with help of Russia) is a "merit" of historians, not History, because 3 thousand years long this ethnotoponym is common for Turkic peoples.The area Arman in the headwaters of Euphrates was populated by Subar-Mitan, Hurri-Mitan sinse III till I millennium BC; later belonged to Urartu (X-VIII centuries BC): in VII century up to BC Saka-Kimmerian (Saga-Gamer) tribes settled here. The Turkic population was dominant (Saka-Kimmerian [Saga-Gamer], Subar, Armi-Mitan), Hurris made a prepotent element as well. In the end of VII century the area was joined to Median Empire, and since middle of VI century conwuered by Ahemenis. Before the reign of Selevki Dynasty the satraps appointed to this area were from Urartu, Median, Sak/Sag and Persian by origin.In the course of Alexander the Great Asia Minor campaigns Ahemenis dynasty was replaced by snother one, the Selevki dynasty. Only after defeat of Аntiochus III (223-187 BC) by Rome the area Arman/Erman was divided into 2 Roman provinces. Though during at Тigran II reign the area was subject to Tigranokert, the capital, further it was dependent first on Rome then Parthyans.Before Seljuks, this country (Arman/Erman) was conquered by Arshakis, Sasanis, Byzantium, Arabian Caliphate at different periods of time. The administrative-political value of this country was not equal at each period, it increased or diminished depending on whether united with adjoining areas or not. At Herodotus's time so called "Great Armenia" was extent no more than 310 kms. Even neighbouring area Matien was twice as large (Herodotus, V, 52).As we see the horonym Ermen (Arman[~iya]) was formed from Turkic ethnonym Arman/Erman. The borders of this area frequently varied. Probably,Ermen Turkis, as well as Alban Turkic tribes were the first to adopt christianity, as the word "arman/erman/ermen" carried the meaning of "Christian" as well. So, in Shak area of Northern Azerbaijan there is a village Kish with such toponymy as Ermen Yeri (land of Ermens), Ermen cemetery though these territories have never been populated by Hays. These names mean "Christian". Note that Ermi, the tribal division of western Bulgarian Turkis were also christians Ancient Hay historians mentioned the Arsag/Arshak kin very often. At the same time they tried to present their peoples’ history against the background of this dynasty. Surely, Parthians conwuered both Armenian and Azerbaijan (Albania and Atropatene), Saak (Anak-bey’s son) Parthian monk was even the first to profess christianity in these countries. But Arsags/Arshaks were the descendants of Saka/Saqa Turkic tribe and Hays were always Hays although Moses Horenatsi having read the Armenian translation of bible “amended” it into Armenian/Hay origin of the dynasty (53). Obviously, Procopus who knew about such tricks pointed out: “Let nobody think that Arsags/Arshaks dynasty are of Armenian origin” (“De Aedificiis”, III, 1, 4).As we see, the toponymy Alban/Alvan (Aghvan), Aran, Ermen/Arman/Erman situated on the territory lying between Derbend in the north and Euphrates in south were formed on the basis of identical Turkic ethnonyms. The process of expanding of most disputable Ermen/Arman/Erman on great territory and the stages of its formation were considered as well. Now we can give the account of Hays’ “armenization” after their appearance in Asia Minor. As for the name “Hayastan” it was used in I-IV centuries in Anatolia and V-XIX in Caucasus as Hays’ inhabited localities; there were 1, 2, 3, … 100 ‘Hayastans’ till 1920 when Soviet Armenian Republic was created in Western Azerbaijani lands (54). Long before this, the lands of modern Armenia (‘Hayastan’) were basically inhabited by Turkic tribes Azer/Azar, Ermen (not Hays!), Saqa-Kimmers (Saga-Gamer), Bulgar, Subar-Sabir and others who initially were Tengrians (Tengrianity – Turkic monotheism) and turned into Christianity before adoption of Islam .

The oldest sources which speak of the Urartians are of Assyrian origin. The Assyrian king Salmanassar (1274-1245 B.C.) reports that he undertook a campaign against the Urartians in the first years of his reign. The inscription tells us of no less than eight countries and fifty-one cities which the king (in the year 1274 B.C.) claims to have destroyed. This would indicate a dispersal of the Urartians in the mountainous regions of eastern Anatolia. The Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208 B.C.) later reports on the conquest of Nairian lands (Nairi and Urartu appear to have been largely identical) and the defeat of forty kings who resided in the area of Lake Van. These were undoubtedly princes of Urartian and Nairian tribes, who ruled between the Euphrates and Lake Urmia, with the area around Lake Van as a natural center. They must have been of Hurrian or proto-Urartian origin. The fact that Hurrians and Urartians have a common origin surely played an important role here, because the Urartian language is neither of Semitic nor of Indo-European origin. It is an Asian language related to Hurrian. The morphology as well as the phonology, syntax, and vocabulary of Urartian are closely related to Hurrian. This affinity of the languages is what provides us with conclusive evidence of the common roots of the Hurrians and Urartians.

They are two branches on the same trunk, with common roots in the past. They apparently came in two successive waves of migration from Asia via Transcaucasia to Anatolia. Apart from the different times of migration, the linguistic and cultural differences appear to be due to the fact that the Urartians always tended to settle in the mountains. The prevalent view today holds that the Hurrians migrated from the steppes and highlands of Central Asia (just as the proto-Turks who produced the rock-drawings in the caves and on the cliffs of eastern Anatolia had done generations earlier). The Urartians then followed the same path to eastern Anatolia, but they had already been separated from the Hurrians since the third millenium B.C. It is also clear that Urartian.is an Asian language, closely related to the agglutinative Hurrian language.

The Urartians : A royal inscription on the castle of Van in eastern Anatolia. The Urartian script has recently been deciphered. It has now been firmly established that the Urartian language is of Asian origin. It belongs, like Turkish, to the agglutinative languages. Linguists believe that the Hurrians came to Anatolia from the steppes and mountains of central Asia. The Urartians came from the same area, splitting with the Hurrians around the middle of the third millennium B. C. Today, we know for certain that there is no connection between Urartian or Hurrian and the Indo-European Armenian language (aside from certain Urartian elements that were taken over by the speakers of Armenian after their immigration). Armenian belongs to the Satem group of Indo-European languages, whereas Urartian has the peculiar feature of forming new words by simply adding suffixes to a given root. It shares this feature with the Ural-Altaic languages.

The Armenians can be considered as more or less "related by marriage". They have no linguistic or ethnic connection to the greater Hurrian-Urartian family, which comes from the Asian linguistic sphere. The Turkic peoples, on the other hand, share common roots with the "proto-Turkish" peoples of the Hurrian-Urartian world.... I would like to comment briefly on the tremendous influence that Turkish art has had on the architecture of the Armenians. Armenian buildings clearly take their round style from the round style of the Turkic peoples. Around the time of the construction of Aghtamar, when the Armenians were living under the rule of the Abbaside Caliphs of Baghdad, the Turkic peoples were the ones who exercised the real power.

The Armenians never in history constituted a majority in eastern Anatolia or anywhere else in the Ottoman Empire. There is not one single district, not even a single city that they could call a "homeland" in this sense....all the semi-independent Armenian principalities in Anatolia had already fallen to the Byzantines, to the Mamluks, or to the Crusaders decades or even generations before the Turks. The Turks were welcomed everywhere by the Armenians as liberators from Byzantine oppression. And this Turkish-Armenian friendship lasted well into the nineteenth century.

Many Armenians died in the turmoil of the war and in the constant revolts. The Islamic losses were nevertheless many times greater. To this day, no one has asked about the fate of the Moslem victims of the riots instigated by Armenian terrorists....The conquest and destruction of Ani "by the Turks" is a part of the Armenian terrorists' basic legend and thus also a part of their spiritual cause. The truth is that the Armenian principality of Ani was occupied by the Byzantines decades before the arrival of the Seljuks and was later destroyed by earthquakes.

Some countries take their name from their inhabitants. France, England, Germany or Turkey are home to French, English, Germans or Turks respectively. Names of countries such as America Bolivia and Ecuador, on the other hand, designate a geographical area without making any reference to the origins of the people who live there. In antiquity, there were many names for the provinces of Anatolia, and these names were also applied to the inhabitants of each province. Some examples are Paphlagonia, Pamphylia, and Cappadocia. The inhabitants of such provinces were by no means all members of a single tribe. They simply had a common name based on the area in which they lived. As with so many other place names, the name "Armenia" designates a geographical region, not a people. The Armenians call themselves "Haik" in their own language. This already indicates that the area known as Armenia is in no way their place of origin. Just where the "Haik" (singular "Hai") do come from is not exactly clear. Everything indicates that they migrated from the West and finally settled in small groups east of the Euphrates. The language of the Armenians is for the most part Indo-European. After their migration, however, it became mixed with non-Aryan, Anatolian languages.... The very first mention of the Armenians anywhere is to be found in the trilingual (Iranian, Babylonian, and Elamitic-Turanian) inscription of Behistun in western Iran, in which the Persian king Darius (485 B.C.) lists Armenia as one of his satrapies. This first written record could be seen as having symbolic significance, in light of the fact that the Armenian communities almost never in their history rose above the status of satrapies, or at best semi independent principalities.

The Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Anatolia – a Key to the Understanding of the History of Anatolia

From the geopolitical standpoint, eastern Anatolia has played a key role in world history. To the south lies Mesopotamia. (The Tigris and Euphrates rivers both have their sources in the mountains of eastern Anatolia!) To the east is Iran; to the north, the Caucasus; and to the west, central Anatolia. The cultural puzzles of eastern Anatolia, including those of the Urartians and their predecessors the Hurrians, have only recently been solved. Because of the unique location of this region, these cultures are very closely related to the surrounding cultures of Iran, Mesopotamia, and central Anatolia. Until the second half of the twentieth century, virtually nothing was known of the prehistoric settlement of eastern Anatolia. When ancient cave-paintings were discovered in western Europe, they were thought to be the oldest examples of human artwork anywhere. Then cavedrawings were discovered on the steppes of Asia and in Africa. It was only recently that Turkish archeologists discovered very old, dense settlements in eastern Anatolia. The highland of the area provided the hunters and gatherers of the time with everything they needed: dense forest; plenty of wild game; and water. The sensational discovery in the last years of innumerable rock-drawings in eastern Anatolia suddenly threw an entirely new light on the understanding of the early development of this region. The depictions of gods, worshippers, animals, and hunters are in some cases 15,000 years old.

The rock-drawings of eastern Anatolia are found primarily in four districts: around Malatya-Adiaman; near Kars; in the region around Van; and in the mountains of Hakkari. Dr. Oktay Belli, member of the Turkish Historical Society (Turk Tarih Kurumu), discovered the rock-drawings of the Van region, which were done between 15,000 and 7,000 B.C. In the region of Yedisalkim, in the Hakkari Mountains, there are also prehistoric pictures of gods in the caves high above the valley floor. Concerning the people who created these works of art, there exist some very clear indications. Similar rockdrawings have been found in eastern Azerbaijan, in Kobistan, in the Altai region, and in Siberia. The density with which these rock-drawings occur shows beyond a doubt that they are of proto-Turkish origin. The people who made these drawings belonged to early nomadic and semi-nomadic Turkish tribes. A similar conclusion can be drawn in the case of the stylized drawings from the Gevaruk Valley (Hakkari) and those on the Plateau of Tirshin. The rock-drawings of Gevaruk and Tirshin are of particular significance because they bear a strong resemblance to the drawings and symbols in the Cunni cave, near Erzurum, and on the stone blocks of the temple of Zeus in Aizonai (Çavdarhisar, near Kutahya). They were done by ancient Turkish clans of the region.

The latest discoveries demonstrate clearly that there was already a connection in prehistoric times between eastern Anatolia and the artistic and cultural centers of the steppes of Azerbaijan and Siberia, as well as the mountainous regions of the Altai - the original homeland of the Turkic peoples. From prehistoric days right up to modern times, wandering and semi-nomadic Turkish and protoTurkish tribes have formed a living tie between Inner Asia and Anatolia. Asia is the home of the yurts. "Yurt" is a Turkish word meaning both "tent" and "home". Bee-hive houses, similar to yurts, can be seen in Anatolia. They are a creation of the Hurrians, predecessors of the Urartians, whose realm lay between the Caucasus, Lake Urmia, and the region around Malatya-Elazig. Various local names have been given to this cultural zone. These include "KuraAras Culture" and "Karaz Culture". The creators and upholders of this culture spoke a language belonging to the Ural-Altaic family, to which Turkish also belongs. Early Hurri Culture together with Hurri Culture formed the foundation for the Urartian kingdom which followed.

A characteristic feature of Hurrian culture was the round house, similar to the round tents of the semi-nomadic Hurrians. Round houses of the Hurrian type can still be seen today in the region of Urfa and Haran. The later Turkish domed buildings of the Ottoman period would appear to be a logical development from the yurt and the bee-hive house. It was the Greeks and the Romans who developed the techniques for constructing large domes, but the enthusiasm with which the Ottomans adopted these techniques is undoubtedly related to the ancient preference of the Turkic peoples for round houses and yurts.